1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a company engaging in the business of manufacturing motor vehicle parts, etc., with approximately 20 workers, and the Plaintiff served as the representative director of the Intervenor company from January 1, 2014 to October 10 of the same year according to the Intervenor’s labor contract with the Intervenor company.

B. However, on October 10, 2014, the intervenor company’s notification of the termination of the officer labor contract with the Plaintiff on the part of October 10, 2014, and the Plaintiff’s dismissal made by the intervenor company to the Plaintiff as of October 10, 2014 on December 29, 2012 of the same year by the Intervenor Company to the Seoul Southern Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Seoulnam Labor Relations Commission”) on the part of the Plaintiff is regarded as unfair. The Intervenor’s request for remedy was made to the purport, but the Jeonnam Labor Relations Commission’s request for remedy was made on February 24, 2015, and it is difficult to view the Plaintiff as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and therefore, there is no standing to

C. On March 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the Central Labor Relations Commission as to the Ministry of Labor Nos. 2015 and No. 278, and the National Labor Relations Commission has the same year.

5.26. Bab

The court dismissed the plaintiff's request for reexamination to the same purport as the first inquiry court of the Jeonnam-do Labor Relations Commission as stated in the port.

(hereinafter the above review decision by the National Labor Relations Commission is referred to as the “instant review decision”). 【Ground for recognition” has no dispute, entry in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff did not exercise his authority as the president with respect to the operation of funds and the decision on investment in facilities of the participant company, and only worked in the participant company with the order of the representative director on the register of the participant company. As such, the plaintiff is a monthly president of the so-called participant company, which is an employee under the Labor Standards Act. However, the decision on the reexamination of this case which neglected these points is illegal. 2) The plaintiff of the defendant or the participant company is illegal